DoD contract for financial management support awarded to SIGNIFICANCE INC for over $3.6M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,664,174 ($3.7M)

Contractor: Significance Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-12-30

End Date: 2027-01-02

Contract Duration: 368 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS

Sector: Other

Official Description: SUPPORT NAVFAC FM WITH AUDIT RESPONSE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES.

Place of Performance

Location: ANNAPOLIS, ANNE ARUNDEL County, MARYLAND, 21401

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $3.7 million to SIGNIFICANCE INC for work described as: SUPPORT NAVFAC FM WITH AUDIT RESPONSE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on audit response and financial management improvement for NAVFAC. 2. Awarded via full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a competitive process. 3. Contract duration is approximately 368 days, suggesting a focused, short-term initiative. 4. The contract type is labor hours, allowing flexibility in resource allocation. 5. The primary service falls under Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services. 6. The contract is a delivery order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $3.66 million for approximately one year of support appears reasonable for specialized financial management and audit response services within the Department of Defense. Benchmarking against similar contracts for management consulting services to federal agencies suggests this is within a typical range, especially considering the specific requirements of supporting NAVFAC's audit response and financial improvement initiatives. The labor hours contract type allows for cost control by paying only for actual work performed, which can be a value-for-money indicator if managed effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This specific procurement method suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources may have been excluded prior to the solicitation, possibly due to specific qualifications or prior relationships. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'exclusion of sources' phrasing implies a potentially narrower field than a pure 'full and open' competition. This could impact price discovery if highly qualified potential bidders were excluded without clear justification.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure qualified services. However, the exclusion of sources warrants scrutiny to ensure that the most cost-effective solutions were considered and that the exclusion did not unduly limit competition, potentially leading to higher costs than a truly open bid.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Navy's Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), which will receive enhanced support for its financial management and audit response. Services delivered include critical support for audit responses and initiatives aimed at improving financial management processes. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of Defense's operational sphere, supporting a major naval command. Workforce implications include the potential for specialized consultants to augment government staff, improving efficiency and expertise in financial operations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition method could limit the pool of potential bidders, potentially impacting cost-effectiveness.
Lack of specific performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the contractor's past performance.
The contract is a delivery order, which could indicate it's part of a larger, potentially less scrutinized, IDIQ contract.

Positive Signals

Awarded to SIGNIFICANCE INC, a known entity in the contracting space.
The contract is for essential financial management and audit response services, indicating a critical need.
The duration of approximately one year allows for focused effort on specific financial improvement goals.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically management and general management consulting. This sector is a significant component of federal spending, supporting a wide array of government functions from policy development to operational efficiency. The market for these services is competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized expertise. The value of this contract, over $3.6 million, is moderate within the context of large federal consulting engagements, but significant for the specific support required by NAVFAC.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this specific contract. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing specialized expertise through full and open competition. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. The absence of small business set-aside requirements means that larger, established firms were likely the primary targets for this solicitation, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller businesses to engage directly on this particular award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the program management office within the Department of the Navy. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms and conditions of the delivery order, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where award details are published. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) initiatives
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Operations Support
Federal Financial Management Consulting Services
Government Audit Response Support Contracts
Administrative Management Consulting Services

Risk Flags

Competition Limitation: 'Exclusion of sources' may have reduced competitive pressure.
Performance Ambiguity: Specific performance metrics and outcomes are not detailed.
Contract Type Nuance: Delivery order under a potential larger IDIQ requires further context.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $3.7 million to SIGNIFICANCE INC. SUPPORT NAVFAC FM WITH AUDIT RESPONSE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SIGNIFICANCE INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-12-30. End: 2027-01-02.

What is the track record of SIGNIFICANCE INC in providing similar financial management and audit response services to the federal government?

A comprehensive review of SIGNIFICANCE INC's track record would require accessing detailed contract databases and performance reviews. However, based on the award of this $3.66 million contract by the Department of the Navy for NAVFAC support, it can be inferred that the company possesses the necessary qualifications and has demonstrated past performance deemed acceptable by the agency. Federal procurement systems often include past performance evaluations as a key factor in award decisions. Further investigation into their contract history, including the types of services rendered, client agencies, contract values, and any available performance ratings, would provide a clearer picture of their expertise and reliability in this specific domain.

How does the awarded value of $3.66 million compare to similar financial management consulting contracts within the Department of Defense?

The awarded value of $3.66 million for approximately one year of support for audit response and financial management improvement initiatives appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized federal consulting services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for management and financial consulting within the DoD, particularly those supporting large commands like NAVFAC, suggests this figure is moderate. Contracts of this nature often range from several hundred thousand to several million dollars, depending on the scope, duration, and complexity of the required services. Factors such as the number of personnel required, the level of expertise, and the specific deliverables (e.g., audit remediation, system implementation, policy development) influence the overall cost. Without specific details on the scope of work, a precise comparison is difficult, but the value does not immediately suggest overpricing.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Key risks associated with this contract include potential performance deficiencies, cost overruns (though mitigated by labor hours), and challenges in integrating contractor support with internal government processes. Performance risk is inherent in any service contract; mitigation typically involves clear performance standards, regular progress reviews, and robust oversight by the government. Cost risk, while present, is somewhat managed by the labor hours contract type, which ties payment directly to effort expended. Integration risk can arise if the contractor's personnel do not effectively collaborate with NAVFAC staff; this is usually addressed through strong contract management and clear communication protocols. The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition could also be viewed as a risk if it limited the best possible value.

How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method in ensuring value for taxpayers in this instance?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method aims to balance broad competition with the need for specific capabilities. While 'full and open' suggests an intention to solicit widely, the 'exclusion of sources' clause indicates that certain potential bidders were not considered. The effectiveness for taxpayers hinges on the justification for excluding sources and the level of competition that remained. If the excluded sources were not essential for achieving the required technical capabilities or if the remaining competition was robust enough to drive competitive pricing, then value for taxpayers can be achieved. However, if significant potential competitors were excluded without clear justification, it could limit price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs than a truly unrestricted competition.

What are the historical spending patterns for similar financial management support services within the Department of the Navy or NAVFAC?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar financial management support services within the Department of the Navy or NAVFAC would require access to detailed historical contract data. Generally, federal agencies like the Navy allocate significant budgets towards financial management, audit readiness, and process improvement initiatives, especially in response to federal mandates like the Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act and the National Defense Authorization Acts requiring auditable financial statements. Spending in this area can fluctuate based on audit findings, regulatory changes, and strategic priorities. Contracts for these services often involve management consulting firms, IT support, and specialized audit firms. Understanding past spending levels would provide context for the current $3.66 million award, indicating whether it represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in these critical functions.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS (Z)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1835 FOREST DR, ANNAPOLIS, MD, 21401

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Economically Disadvantaged Women Owned Small Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,664,174

Exercised Options: $3,664,174

Current Obligation: $3,664,174

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6247025D0004

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline